May 29, 2008

New Source of Revenue: Archived Photos

Robert Levine, Sony Taps Into Photo Archive as a Resource During Hard Times, 5/29/08 New York Times (Music).

Summary -- The shelves at Sony’s New York headquarters hold decades of music history, which the company hopes to use to attract new revenue.

An Article Meant for This Blog?!

The Patry Copyright Blog pointed OTCS to the article Borrowing the Blues: Copyright and the Contexts of Robert Johnson, by Olufunmilayo Arewa (Northwestern University School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-19, May 13, 2008).

Patry's take on the article here.

May 28, 2008

Viacom v. YouTube - Answer

Though not a "music case" per se, we venture to link to the Defendants' Answer in Viacom v. YouTube. The outcome of this case, without doubt, will have a tremendous impact on the world of copyright and in turn, the evolution of the music business in the digital age.

In reading the Answer, note that Defendants take the rare step of providing an introduction Rather than merely admit, deny, or d.k.i, Defendants offer a glimpse at their theory of the case.

Note also that Defendants assert twelve affirmative defenses. Although this case is pending in Federal Court in the Southern District of New York, in New York State courts (and especially the Second Department), one sentence affirmative defenses bereft of any factual support are subject to dismissal. Here, the affirmative defenses are one sentence and completely bereft of any factual support. [New York practioners: if you would like case citations, shoot an e-mail to OCTS.) Would Plaintiff's lawyers pursue such a motion, or would it be a waste of time, especially if Defendants can file an Amended Answer?

May 27, 2008

Sampling Suit - West, Common, & Redman

Rolling Stone reports:
Kanye West, Common, Method Man and Redman were all sued for sampling late jazz artist Joe Farrell’s 1974 song “Upon This Rock” without permission.

The case was filed in SDNY. Complaint below:

Read this doc on Scribd: Firrantello v West et al COMPLAINT

[Firrantello v. West et al., No. 08-cv-4785 (S.D.N.Y. filed 5/22/08)]

Vacating DMX Order Where Improper Service

A $1.5mil judgment against DMX was vacated by a Maryland state court judge after finding that the rapper was not properly served process.

His lawyer argued that the defamation-claim plaintiff did not properly serve DMX with the lawsuit papers and was unaware of the case against him.

Any readers from Maryland, please feel free to drop a line on the service requirements under state law. In New York, service of process is governed by CPLR Article 3. For example, for service upon an individual, see CPLR 308. Also, under New York law and objection that the summons and complaint were not properly served is waived if, having raised such objection in a pleading, the objecting party does not moved for judgment on that ground within sixty days after serving the pleading. CPLR 3211(e).